Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Exactly what were they protecting their homes against? The passage of legislation ending slavery by the lawfully elected government?

Union armies.

You mean the armies of their own country? Oh that's right, they tried to secede. To preserve slavery.

 Polonius wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
And I'm sure that's why they fought. Good for them.

Doesn't change that they were fighting on the side of slavery. Sorry. Sometimes your family and home are part of a culture that is doing something awful.

There's a gulf between "fighting on the side of slavery" and "fighting in support of slavery." One speaks to motivation. One does not.

Colloquially, maybe. I suppose it could be clearer stated.

A southern soldier's actions, in furtherance of his government, aided the cause of slavery, despite his personal motivation.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Exactly what were they protecting their homes against? The passage of legislation ending slavery by the lawfully elected government?

Union armies.

You mean the armies of their own country? Oh that's right, they tried to secede. To preserve slavery.

Doesn't matter when they are marching down the road killing things now does it.

Them shooting union soldiers was an action that directly supported the fight to keep slavery alive. What they were thinking when they lined up and pulled the trigger doesn't change that.

The flag is a symbol of DIVISION, a DIVIDED national or a collection of countries like Europe in my opinion. The UNITED STATES of America is what our modern flag represents. To me people who fly the Confederate flag don't want to be American, or have such a xenophobic/scewed view of America that it is okay to believe that there is an REAL America, or a traditional America. Not this liberal love fest the tea-partiers say we live in now. To give some perspective, I am from VA and I am a fan of the Washington Redskins. Even though it is tradition, that name has needed to be changed for a long time I think. I am all for tradition, unless if that tradition demonstrates intolerance or indifference.

 Seaward wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
The contention is that every Southerner fought in support of slavery.

It is literally true.

That's the statement Polonius has been arguing in support of.

And it remains correct. Men who fought on the side of the CSA were supporting the preservation of slavery by doing so. As I already mentioned to you, whether some of them could have hypothetically also disapproved of slavery is immaterial to the discussion. Your attempt to rejoin that was that the stars & bars could stand for more than preserving slavery to which I responded that however much more it might stand for it still also stands for the preservation of slavery.

So now we're caught up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't matter when they are marching down the road killing things now does it.

It absolutely does considering that is the reason they are marching down the road and killing things in the first place.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


It should also be noted here that BOTH SIDES employed the draft (for poor people, the wealthy could buy a stand in). So to be more accurate:
THE GUYS IN CHARGE were fighting for a government to maintain slavery. Most CSA troops were fighting to protect their land or were drafted, same as the Union troops.

You can't form a new government just because you decided one day 'lets leave the union and make a new government.' You first have to ask the question 'if we make a new government will people do what we say.' The answer was yes in the end which meant there were enough people in the South behind the cause of secession to make it happen. Given how much the Confederacy made the civil war about slavery (North had nothing to do with that till 1863), you'd need to be a blind deaf man living in 1860 to think the war was about anything else.

Maybe they repackaged that issue as 'states rights' and 'freedom' and 'protecting our homes' but you can wrap up a turd and put a bow on it all you want. It's still a turd and ultimately the Civil War was about slavery. Taking it as a personal attack against them and their heritage 200 years later is childish.

The war was recast as State's Rights in the late 19th Century, in an attempt to rehabilitate the heroes of that war, which was still fresh in minds. It's a bit more complicated, and basically was a reaction by Southern elites and intellectuals to avoid looking like, well, the bad guys. It's not a historical interpretation with much respect now among historians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_cause

Weren't the South being slapped with taxes or tariffs prior to the war?

I thought that was one of the greviences the southern states had (in addition to slavery).

 Manchu wrote:
And it remains correct.

Sadly, it does not. Polonius said what you're trying to say much more clearly several posts ago.

Your attempt to rejoin that was that the stars & bars could stand for more than preserving slavery to which I responded that however much more it might stand for it still also stands for the preservation of slavery.

Could you find that quote for me?

 Polonius wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


It should also be noted here that BOTH SIDES employed the draft (for poor people, the wealthy could buy a stand in). So to be more accurate:
THE GUYS IN CHARGE were fighting for a government to maintain slavery. Most CSA troops were fighting to protect their land or were drafted, same as the Union troops.

You can't form a new government just because you decided one day 'lets leave the union and make a new government.' You first have to ask the question 'if we make a new government will people do what we say.' The answer was yes in the end which meant there were enough people in the South behind the cause of secession to make it happen. Given how much the Confederacy made the civil war about slavery (North had nothing to do with that till 1863), you'd need to be a blind deaf man living in 1860 to think the war was about anything else.

Maybe they repackaged that issue as 'states rights' and 'freedom' and 'protecting our homes' but you can wrap up a turd and put a bow on it all you want. It's still a turd and ultimately the Civil War was about slavery. Taking it as a personal attack against them and their heritage 200 years later is childish.

The war was recast as State's Rights in the late 19th Century, in an attempt to rehabilitate the heroes of that war, which was still fresh in minds. It's a bit more complicated, and basically was a reaction by Southern elites and intellectuals to avoid looking like, well, the bad guys. It's not a historical interpretation with much respect now among historians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_cause

Agreed. If you look at the verious secession documents, they denote state's right liberty, etc., but it always was tied to the rights of slaveholders.

 Seaward wrote:
Polonius said what you're trying to say much more clearly several posts ago.

The only place it was ever unclear was in your mind, and I very much doubt it was ever unclear there, either.

 Seaward wrote:

Your attempt to rejoin that was that the stars & bars could stand for more than preserving slavery to which I responded that however much more it might stand for it still also stands for the preservation of slavery.

Could you find that quote for me?

 Seaward wrote:

Of course, what you want to say is that some people who fought under the battle flag hypothetically may not have approved of slavery. Which is fine but not much of a point regarding anything being discussed here.

Save, of course, for whether or not the Confederate flag can mean more than, "I support slavery."

 Manchu wrote:
No one is arguing that it cannot mean more but the point remains that however much more it means it still includes "I support slavery." And if you decide to fight for the side that supports slavery, you are supporting slavery.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


The war was recast as State's Rights in the late 19th Century, in an attempt to rehabilitate the heroes of that war, which was still fresh in minds. It's a bit more complicated, and basically was a reaction by Southern elites and intellectuals to avoid looking like, well, the bad guys. It's not a historical interpretation with much respect now among historians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_cause

Agreed. If you look at the verious secession documents, they denote state's right liberty, etc., but it always was tied to the rights of slaveholders.

And it's a shame we turn history into a child's game of right and wrong. Slavery is a tremendous evil, but not everybody associated with it was evil. Context matters, and morals are always easy when it isn't your wealth tied up in them.

I wish we could view the military history of the civil war independently, recognizing the brilliance of a small handful of Confederate generals, and ignoring that while they clearly had the top two generals and three of the top five (Lee, Jackson, and Longstreet, with Grant and Sherman rounding out the top five), the Union had the bulk of the good generals.

Back on topic

The confederate flag no longer means what it was intended to be in the 1860's and thank The Lord for that on both counts.

The reconstruction period formation of racist groups that used the flag to drive their message of hate had completely eliminated the true meaning of the flag's purpose.

Also, some here have misspoke as to the South's purpose in the war. The South was basically a large cottage industry and not an industrialized economy as in the North.

The main reason for the outbreak of the war was not in fact due to slavery but the infringement on states rights. The South did not want Washington, D.C. telling it how to run its economy. Slavery was a major cog I'm not denying but there is more to it than simply stating the war was about slavery.

The purpose of the norths involvement was to preserve the union. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union at all costs, hence the phrase war of northern aggression as Lincoln forced the South's hand into firing first to gain national sentiment that the south was wrong and should change its ways. The little known pre-emancipation declaration to not free the slaves in 1862 if you put down your arms and rejoined the union is never discussed in social studies classrooms anymore.

It was not until 1863 when Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation that the abolitionist movements drove the "free the slaves" war-cry. The problem is, in december of 1860 the states began seceding, starting with South Carolina. By doing this the rules and laws issued by the north no longer applied. Slaves in the south of the ten states in rebellion were freed according the emancipation proclamation however it meant nothing as those states did not follow those laws. The states still in the union did not have to abolish slavery. The purpose of the emancipation proclamation was as a war measure to cause havoc behind the lines. New Jersey did not abolish slavery until 1865 for example and Kentucky stayed neutral for the first years of the war then asked the north for assistance. Neither of these states freed slaves until slavery was ultimately abolished in with the 13th amendment.

Great discussion, I apologize for running on,History was my major in college.

Phi Alpha Theta forever!

 Polonius wrote:
I wish we could view the military history of the civil war independently

Of slavery? That's de rigueur in wargaming circles.

State's Rights

Oh it was about state's rights. Like the rights of the Southern States to federally mandate Northern states to enforce the institution of slavery with the Fugitive Slave Act and the right for a state to vote about whether or not it will be a slave state.

Slavery was a stable of southern culture. A defining aspect of Antebellum politics was the battle between North and South in the Federal government over the institution of slavery. The South had a dominating control of the federal government for 40 years using that control to in part protect slavery, until 1860 when the finally fully lost control of the Federal government and decided they wanted to take their slaves and go home.

Like I said. You can wrap the turd however you want but its still a turd. While I think many Southerns didn't think "welp time to go defend slavery" every morning during the Civil War, slavery was an aspect of their culture that they mostly accepted and they knew slavery was why the war happened. In the end they were indirectly supporting the cause of slavery.

This is one of the few issues where I honestly tolerate no horse gak. The Civil War was about slavery and that's not a personal attack against anybody. The times were what they were. Pointing out the way things were 200 years ago is not a guillotine coming down on anyone's head or an accusation that every Southerner in 1860 was a horrible person or even that being a slave owner in 1860 made you a horrible person. Times change and when we look back we wonder why things were so terrible (before we start complaining about how terrible they are now )

@JamesGang: No, the main reason for the Civil War was that the South wanted to preserve slavery.

 Manchu wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Polonius said what you're trying to say much more clearly several posts ago.

The only place it was ever unclear was in your mind, and I very much doubt it was ever unclear there, either.

 Seaward wrote:

Your attempt to rejoin that was that the stars & bars could stand for more than preserving slavery to which I responded that however much more it might stand for it still also stands for the preservation of slavery.

Could you find that quote for me?

 Seaward wrote:

Of course, what you want to say is that some people who fought under the battle flag hypothetically may not have approved of slavery. Which is fine but not much of a point regarding anything being discussed here.

Save, of course, for whether or not the Confederate flag can mean more than, "I support slavery."

 Manchu wrote:
No one is arguing that it cannot mean more but the point remains that however much more it means it still includes "I support slavery." And if you decide to fight for the side that supports slavery, you are supporting slavery.

And we're right back to square one. Because, no, fighting on the side of slavery does not necessarily mean you support slavery, any more than fighting on the side of, say, Halliburton means you support Halliburton.

I don't know. Maybe this is simply a semantic disagreement. "Fighting in support," to me, in the context it's being used, cannot be divorced from motivation.

 Seaward wrote:
Because, no, fighting on the side of slavery does not necessarily mean you support slavery,

Supporting isn't just believing in something(which is what you keep taking it to mean), it's ALSO enabling something to function. By fighting on the side of slavery, you ARE supporting slavery.

Absolutely they did, I'm not denying that. But they did so based on their economy.

Slavery is tied in no doubt but its not a clear cut the war was about slavery end of discussion statement.

You cannot simply brush it off as that. Slavery

Case in point the Dred scot decision and the violation of southern slave holders and their property to remain their property when going to a free state. However that contradicted the northern states rights where slavery as illegal. It's not as easy as you make it out to be.

JamesGang wrote:

The main reason for the outbreak of the war was not in fact due to slavery but the infringement on states rights. The South did not want Washington, D.C. telling it how to run its economy. Slavery was a major cog I'm not denying but there is more to it than simply stating the war was about slavery.

You can make it more complicated, sure. I'd agree that the South seceded because it saw economic and (more dangerously) political power slip out of it's hands. When the US was agrarian, the plantation economy was efficient and powerful. Compared to industrialization, the south was rapidly losing the race in terms of money, population, and eventually, states.

For the first time since John Q. Adams, the president was from a non-slave state, and the South had always hated any form of tax.

Like all rebellions, the Civil war was about the elites of the South, used to being the Elites of the US, not wanting to accept a secondary role. So, in one sense, the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all, but rather about the more prosaic issue of taxes, power, and control.

More realistically, the reason there was a split in the elite caste of American politics is because only Southern (and border state) elites owned slaves. Also, the Slave States were notoriously aggressive in maintaining the balance in the senate between slave and free States. And they sought to expand the slave economy, both prior to the war (kansas) during the war (dreams of Cuba) and even after the war (brazil).

So yes, it is untrue to say it was all about slavery, and even an oversimplification to say it was mostly about slavery. But it's naive to think that it was not the issue that most fueled the secession.

Since I'm pretty late to this party: the Confederate flag is a symbol of hatred, and it is a symbol of "states' rights" the same way a crooked swastika is a symbol of 'blondes have more fun'.

Seaward wrote:And we're right back to square one. Because, no, fighting on the side of slavery does not necessarily mean you support slavery, any more than fighting on the side of, say, Halliburton means you support Halliburton.

I don't know. Maybe this is simply a semantic disagreement. "Fighting in support," to me, in the context it's being used, cannot be divorced from motivation.

Fighting on the side of Halliburton may not mean you support Halliburton, but if you go to war in order to preserve Halliburton, then yes, that definitely means you support Halliburton.

Whatever reason a person may have claimed to have as their motivation for signing up for the Confederate Army, the shadow of slavery was so large that no minor reason under it could possibly be taken seriously, in the same sense that if you wore an SS collar in WWII, nobody would take serious the explanation that you just really supported Germany's anti-tobacco movement.

 Polonius wrote:

JamesGang wrote:

The main reason for the outbreak of the war was not in fact due to slavery but the infringement on states rights. The South did not want Washington, D.C. telling it how to run its economy. Slavery was a major cog I'm not denying but there is more to it than simply stating the war was about slavery.

You can make it more complicated, sure. I'd agree that the South seceded because it saw economic and (more dangerously) political power slip out of it's hands. When the US was agrarian, the plantation economy was efficient and powerful. Compared to industrialization, the south was rapidly losing the race in terms of money, population, and eventually, states.

For the first time since John Q. Adams, the president was from a non-slave state, and the South had always hated any form of tax.

Like all rebellions, the Civil war was about the elites of the South, used to being the Elites of the US, not wanting to accept a secondary role. So, in one sense, the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all, but rather about the more prosaic issue of taxes, power, and control.

More realistically, the reason there was a split in the elite caste of American politics is because only Southern (and border state) elites owned slaves. Also, the Slave States were notoriously aggressive in maintaining the balance in the senate between slave and free States. And they sought to expand the slave economy, both prior to the war (kansas) during the war (dreams of Cuba) and even after the war (brazil).

So yes, it is untrue to say it was all about slavery, and even an oversimplification to say it was mostly about slavery. But it's naive to think that it was not the issue that most fueled the secession.

Couldn't have said it better than that... exalted +1

 Seaward wrote:
"Fighting in support," to me, in the context it's being used, cannot be divorced from motivation.

Well, in a sense, I think you're right. I don't think we should entirely dismiss the concept of motivation. Now there is a lot of space between absolute dedication to slavery and fighting "to protect our homes." But what is meant by "home" there isn't just a matter of property rights in things other than human beings. It refers to a wider culture at the center of which was slavery. So while not every (or maybe even any) Johnny Reb thought of nothing but keeping blacks in slavery from the first thing in the morning to the last thing at night, its reasonable to conclude that generally speaking they did think slavery was okay at least "for now." That doesn't obviate the hypothetical abolitionist in grey, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
it is a symbol of "states' rights" the same way a crooked swastika is a symbol of 'blondes have more fun'

Exalt.

No naïveté present here. The problem I always have is the need to make it night and day clarification that the north was pro abolition and the south pro slavery and no in between. The high school education on the subject really waters it down and I would encourage anyone interested to research and see for themselves. The backbone was slavery but not for the most common sense reasons as in right and wrong. That's all I am saying. Glad to have an educated discussion with you guys.

 Platuan4th wrote:
Supporting isn't just believing in something(which is what you keep taking it to mean), it's ALSO enabling something to function. By fighting on the side of slavery, you ARE supporting slavery.

It can mean either or both, actually. Which is why Polonius' revision is far more useful.

 LordofHats wrote:

State's Rights

Oh it was about state's rights. Like the rights of the Southern States to federally mandate Northern states to enforce the institution of slavery with the Fugitive Slave Act and the right for a state to vote about whether or not it will be a slave state.

They can't even use that as an argument since the Constitution of the CSA took away the rights of states to decide this for themselves.

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states


So it's a bit hard to argue "it's about state rights to decide for themselves" when these states formed a new government that made it illegal to decide for themselves.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Fighting on the side of Halliburton may not mean you support Halliburton, but if you go to war in order to preserve Halliburton, then yes, that definitely means you support Halliburton.

What if I go to war to preserve the security of my family but Halliburton ends up being the biggest beneficiary?

I fail to believe there's some alchemical transitive property that winds up with me having gone to war to support Halliburton in that scenario.

At the end of the day, I believe we have all agreed that the flag no longer represents anything of value other than historical context to denote a side in a conflict.

JamesGang wrote:
No naïveté present here. The problem I always have is the need to make it night and day clarification that the north was pro abolition and the south pro slavery and no in between. The high school education on the subject really waters it down and I would encourage anyone interested to research and see for themselves. The backbone was slavery but not for the most common sense reasons as in right and wrong. That's all I am saying. Glad to have an educated discussion with you guys.

The war wasn't about slavery at all for the North, at least not in any meaningful way. It was simply seen as a rebellion that needed put down.

One thing that a serious reading of history makes quickly clear is that no war is simple in nature. But... dig hard enough, and behind every war there is a group of rich people worried about being less rich.

NM.

JamesGang wrote:
At the end of the day, I believe we have all agreed that the flag no longer represents anything of value other than historical context to denote a side in a conflict.

Alas, not really.

The flag really is a symbol of defiance towards the Federal Government, especially with regard to Civil Rights and race relations. The flag's civil war past is, IMO, fairly benign compared to the way it was used in the 1950s and 1960s to signify naked, open racism.